New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-12-05
For this it was not TO

IN
duly ooo,inrs But the fact fhat
H"' % and that be felt it his further duty 10
JIG u'' orn,icotion and that he took his seat 10
gram tho ARGUMENTS of counsel with BIS NINA
hS"" :; serious doubt to the case, ana that
a'e"'' :ors action had been severely censured by
DIS P oil these MS well as the circumstances
"' ,bicb the application for stay was maze
u ,,, no regarded unfortunate. Inc some
c"n ou known Mr. Il. Winslow Paige, it will be
"'', ,.o,ed retained by Sharp especially for TINS
i''" o.o visited the Judge privately, showed HIM
pun l' cord argued Sharps pleas and obtained u
u" Counsel for the people were not present
s'", nov nothing of the proceeding And yet the
anu ,s present condition, was fully complied
. The Judge, however was warmly blamed,
wiz" :. uas in the frame of mind which these at
"", NAY safely be presumed to have PRODUCED in
It'll his associates for even judges are human
,ho, the court entered upon a consideration of the
appeal
These circumstances struck me very forcibly
:. ,oadinr the opening sentences of Judge Dan
,ortb.s opinion lie begins by charactcrizinS the
oy;l,nce against Sharp as "altogcther circumstan-
rial. and by no means conclusive" The Court
q, Appeals has jurisdiction only over questions
n Law. 1t has no authority to review the facts
and vet, knowing that six other persons " to
whom it alludes were indicted jointly with Sharp
as brite givers, it goes out of its way to assail
the evidence which is yet to be used against
them all. Does not this Indicate the spirit i'll
which questions Of law were approached?
This is the first time, too. that any man, either
in or out of the profession. has vcntured 10 doubt
the absolutely conclusive character of this Cir
eumstantial evidence. Yet without jurisdiction TO
examine or pass uIon it. "all concur" in damaging
its further use as far as possible.
1t is to the necessity of placing it beyond the
power of cratic Court of Appeals to prevent
oil prosecutions that the attention of thoughtful
people should chiefly be directed In 1874 the
people. alarmed at the growth of political cor
ruption, passed some amendments to their Con-
sttution. One of these declared that ANY rcr-
son who shall offer promise brilc to an officer,
II it shall be received, shall be deemed guilty OF a
felony and liable to punishment ercrpt as hrein
prord d. Please remember those italicscd words
The solitary exception is there stated. Any PERSON
Offering q bride, IF he shall testify TO the giving
or Offering of such bride spoa any prosecution Of
The Officer for refusing such bride, shall not be
liable to civil or criminal prosecution therefor. >
In other words. the people were willing TO pardon
a bride giver for the sake of convictins faithless
official
In 1881, seven years after this constitutional
amendment passed, the penal laws were codiiied
Ind section 10 of the Code reads in these words
a person offending against any provision of any
foregoing section OF this code relating to biery IS a
competent witness against another person so offending
and NAV be compelled TO attend and testify upon any
trial hearing, proceeding or investigation In the same
manner any other person But tho testimony so
given shall not DO used in any prosecution pro
eeedng, civil or criminal against tho person so test-
flying. person testifying to the giving of
bride which has been accepted shall not thereafter be
liable 20 indictment, prosecution or punishment for
testimony accordingly in bar of such indictment or
prosecution
This section of the Code of course was designed
70 give renal effect TO the constitutional clause
] just quoted The latter. however. speaks only
Of q PROS cution OF bride taicr as the exclusive
occasion upon which bride giycr, tcstfying to
his crime as the States witness, shall be granted
immunity. The former speaks Of ANY trial. hear
ing proceeding or Investigation as the occasions
upon which he can ray for fardon in the coin Of
confession. Obviously trial. hearing and pro-
ceeding are all covered by the word prosecution.
So too. is investigation" il the word refers to
the investigation of q Grand Jury or prosecuting
officer. This Interpretation makes the statute en-
tirely harmonious with the institution. to which
it sought TO give effect, and the two together mean
that any bride giver who turns States evidence
against the official whose corruption is what the
PEG; lie chiefly seek to punish, shall go free But
so soon as meaning is attached TO the word
Investigation" in the statute which makes it
refer to anything except judicial investigation,
then the statute gives bride giver more than
the Constitution gives him. The Constitution how
ever distinctly re fuses TO permit any other or
further conc 81 than the one it prcscribes
Here is the hitch. and the Court of Appeals
entirely overlools it. Judge Danforth, without
condescending to refer TO the learned opinions Of
MIR. Justice Daniels and Presiding Justice Van
Brunt, in which this whole question is exhaustvely
and most conclusivcly treated, without seeming 20
be aware of the fact that the constitution is in
existence, says that this word Investigation" in
oludes in its meaning the inquiries conducted by
committees Of the Legislature. Just look at the
effect of this decision! Any rascal who has bribcd
a public officer and who finds himself hard pressed
by the State, go before legislative committee.
acknowledge his guilt and snap his fingers at the
Dstrict-Attorney who seeks to iDdict him. Accord
ing to this sort of law, if Sharp. Richmond, Kerr.
Foshay and the other consprators who
grabbed broadway had marched in a
body to Senator Lows committee and
sworn 20 the giving Of bride which had
been acc, pted the entire gang would have received
clean bill of health and could have pleaded their
confessed villany in bar of any sort Of prOsecu-
ton And yet the e institution says that this
immunity shall be granted only when they testify
the ,oOsec SfiOn Of the official who took their
bride Obviously the Court Of APP calls has
usurped the powers of the sovereign people and
has amended and added to the onstitution!
Now, Mr. Editor, what are we going 10 do
about this? This is the shape in which the Court
Of Appeals has left our law, preposterous as it
seems. and in this shape the conviction OF bride
givers is impossible. Are going TO lie right
down and let public thieves possess us body, boots
and brooches? Of course you and i, and Mr..
justice Barrett and ex Chief Justice Comstock
and exChief Justice Davis and Presiding Justice
van Brunt and his eminent associates ON the
GENERAL Term. justices Daniels, Brady and Bart